Exactly. The age based analogy is better because it uses your premise of impairment, but rather than a choice based cause like consuming an intoxicant, it uses a natural factor ( age ), which has a closer relationship with other natural factors like a disease that few people choose to purposefully get infected with, and because COVID-19's relationship to mortality is primarily age based, there is more of a correlation between old-age and risk in both COVID-19 stats and increased risk because of impairment due to age.
Like I said, we already pay into an insurance system for healthcare. I'm all for that. What I'm not in favor of is these extra measures brought in by the Emergency Measures Act.
Interesting that you should go there. With things like smoking, people are making a conscious choice that is within their direct control, at least until they become hopeless addicts and need intervention. However, people don't consciously make a choice to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. And besides that, smokers already do pay a fee in taxes.
It's harming all kinds of people by destroying their livelihoods and reducing our overall quality of life. As I've already said, they have the potential to cost more in lives and quality of life than the virus itself. Literally millions of otherwise healthy productive people are suffering as a result right now, and seriously credentialed experts say it just not necessary. So why isn't that part not getting through?
That's just it. We already have that insurance. It's called AHCIP and it covers all kinds of things, including COVID-19 and things more deadly than COVID-19, without the need for invoking Emergency Measures.
As I've said before, the charts are misleading, and I've explained why. So instead of simply repeating that you think the charts aren't misleading, what we need to do is dig into that data to get a more objective picture. I've dug into it as far as I can on my own with the Internet as a resource, and that research definitely gives cause for concern. Is it proof? No. But neither are the graphs and models being pushed by the PTB "proof" either.
The thing about appeals to authority is that they're in the grey basket when it comes to logical fallacies. In this case the authorities in question are impeccably credentialed academics, backed by thousands more, compared to a relatively few in positions of political power. Both have a certain amount of reasonableness in their rationale, and I'm not one of the big "plandemic" or "scamdemic" conspircay theorist.
I just see an obvious disconnect between those who were in favor of the lockdowns and those who aren't, so that makes me curious, and when I look into it as an intelligent person, I see that there is room for improvement based on the concerns of both sides.
At last. I'll take moment out here to pour me some lemonade.
The number of cases isn't the problem. It's the number of hospitalizations, and then the number of those who don't survive. When we look deeper into this situation. that's when the sorts of questions I've been asking come into play, but are very hard to get accurate data on. However what it looks like is that the numbers on mortality are misleading, as well as the numbers on our capacity to deal with the numbers of cases.
It seems to have worked in New Zealand, where according to the news the other day, there were zero active cases. So maybe if things had gone that way voluntarily, it might be over. But even then, the stats on COVID-19 aren't so bad that such drastic measures are necessary across the board.
This is a disease that healthy people recover from fairly quickly, and virtually all those who don't have some preexisting condition or have exceeded their normal lifespan, so if it wasn't specifically COVID-19 that was pinpointed as the cause, it would be some other disease or form of pneumonia that does them in. So why destroy the lives of millions of healthy people to "protect" the vulnerable, when it's only the vulnerable that need protecting?
What you're forgetting is that the whole "flatten the curve" strategy is a trade-off where we deal with more cases over a shorter time span for the disease, versus the same number ( or more cases ) over a longer time span that is more manageable given the system we have to manage it.
So given the stats, we could have just as easily done nothing but exercise stringent controls on the high-risk segment of society, and let the rest go about their daily business, in which case by now we'd be well into the downside of the curve, the costs would be far less, nobody would have lost their livelihoods, or homes, or business. People wouldn't be so depressed and committing suicide, there would be no need for fines and enforcement, and fewer of the high-risk population would have died. How does that not sound like a better strategy?
Yes I completely agree. There needs to be a well-reasoned system of checks and balances, and I am perfectly fine with universal healthcare. It's the going beyond that to these extremes that may cost society more than it saves that I'm concerned about.
I just knew it was in there somewhereI'm good with switching that out, it's fairly analogous to what I was trying to say. As far as being a peaceful anarchist, I'm good with that as well. My first big boy job performance review literally said (in writing) "He's a self-reliant anarchist" so I guess I've spent some time there myself
Last edited:
